Bet365, being sued for refusing to pay out more than £1 million on a student's winning bet, are mounting a legal bid to have part of her action struck out, the High Court heard on Friday.

Counsel for the bookmaker confirmed a pre-trial application will be made in the lawsuit brought in Belfast by Megan McCann.

McCann, who lives near the city, claims she is owed £1,009,960 in winnings.

She was said to be 19 when she staked almost £25,000 on 12 horses running in four races in June 2016. But bet365 refused to pay out, believing her stake was supplied by a third party, in breach of its terms and conditions.

In a writ issued against bet365's parent company, McCann alleges breach of contract and seeks damages in excess of £1m.

Although proceedings are still at an early stage, the case came before a court for the first time on Friday.

Counsel for bet365, Peter Hopkins, revealed an attempt will be made to have the case against the firm reduced before it reaches trial. He told a High Court Master: "The application [will be] to strike out part of the statement of claim."

No further details about the action or the legal move were disclosed during the brief hearing. The case is due back in court in March to fix a date for hearing the application.

It's a claim for breach of contract though. Whether it's a gambling contract, an insurance contract or a contract for selling a car the law for breach of contract won't change.

Kemoh the burden of proof is on the woman because she is the one taking them to court for breach of contract.

It's a claim for breach of contract though. Whether it's a gambling contract, an insurance contract or a contract for selling a car the law for breach of contract won't change.Kemoh the burden of proof is on the woman because she is the one taking th

and no doubt they intend to keep the stake money even though the bet won, was cleared by PTL and all authorisations were green and any red flags raised by the substantial wager were ignored or cleared. In laymans terms if they had refused the wager on bet placement then there is no issue. They are supposed to operate KYC criteria and accepting clever wagers of this size proves they were happy she was a mug operating a losing account. Its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. They would be better off employing capable clued up traders. GREEDY isn't strong enough to describe Denise Coates, didn't she pay herself a £200 million dividend this year? Paying up and tightening the loopholes and redesigning their KYC criteria was surely the way forward.

and no doubt they intend to keep the stake money even though the bet won, was cleared by PTL and all authorisations were green and any red flags raised by the substantial wager were ignored or cleared. In laymans terms if they had refused the wager o

Obviously Bang at it ,But never the less there are so many Syndicates /Betting groups these days where do they draw the

Line?

PAY THE WOMAN ,all said and done they bet winners they were not holding shops up .

Obviously Bang at it ,But never the less there are so many Syndicates /Betting groups these days where do they draw the Line? PAY THE WOMAN ,all said and done they bet winners they were not holding shops up .

to their owners this far worse than an old fashioned stick up, they don't care about any human collateral and from the shops its probably £6k max. Hitting them for a million by being cute enough to think up a perm. fund it and be lucky enough the results go the right way is just damned 'criminal and diabolical' in their eyes.

to their owners this far worse than an old fashioned stick up, they don't care about any human collateral and from the shops its probably £6k max. Hitting them for a million by being cute enough to think up a perm. fund it and be lucky enough the re

"Miss McCann, who lives near Belfast, claims that she is owed £1,009,960 by bet365, which was co-founded and run by Denise Coates, who is said to be worth £3.2 billion."

The world can't be fixed. As time goes on it only gets nastier and greedier.

"Miss McCann, who lives near Belfast, claims that she is owed £1,009,960 by bet365, which was co-founded and run by Denise Coates, who is said to be worth £3.2 billion." The world can't be fixed. As time goes on it only gets nastier and greedier.

@KeMoH -- What is interesting here, for me anyway, is the fact that 365 believe the stake was provided by a third party which they say breaches their T&C's. From a legal perspective, is the onus on the woman to prove her innocence, or is it on 365 to prove her guilt? If the answer is the latter, I wouldn't have thought 365 have got a leg to stand on.

There were reports when this first came up that the woman would argue the third party clause should not apply. I am also not a lawyer but I suspect if there is a third party and if said third party is in the game, then the Phil Ivey casino cheating decision would not help her, insofar as it said different standards applied for professionals than for ordinary consumers, but we shall see. As I said, I'm not a lawyer so would welcome the opinion of anyone who is.

@KeMoH -- What is interesting here, for me anyway, is the fact that 365 believe the stake was provided by a third party which they say breaches their T&C's. From a legal perspective, is the onus on the woman to prove her innocence, or is it on 365 to

I’m praying 365 win this case , and I fancy them very strongly. They have cone this far, and got all this bad publicity, there is no way that they are backing down and settling now.Ramruma is bang on the money here, and I’m hoping it goes to court, they get fukk all and they have to pay hundreds of thousands of costs as well.

I’m praying 365 win this case , and I fancy them very strongly. They have cone this far, and got all this bad publicity, there is no way that they are backing down and settling now.Ramruma is bang on the money here, and I’m hoping it goes to cour

jimeen - why would you prey that 365 wins the case? All 365 had to do was void the bet as soon as it was placed and there probably wouldn't have been any arguments, but no they wanted to wait to see the result(s) and hope they would keep any losses, knowing they would go down the void route if it copped. Just on that basis I hope they lose.

If they win due to "third party payments" being a breach of their T&Cs, I would like to know what is lawful when it comes to a Credit Card paying for bets - is that a "third party payment" as it certainly isn't the customers own money? What difference does it make if you borrow from a friend or a credit card? Would be funny if they won and actually opened up the door for a PPI type claim!

jimeen - why would you prey that 365 wins the case? All 365 had to do was void the bet as soon as it was placed and there probably wouldn't have been any arguments, but no they wanted to wait to see the result(s) and hope they would keep any losses,

Magic Daps , I’m praying 365 win because I believe Ramruma is on the money here as regards the truth. Ask Star Sports what they think of these reptiles, and it’s not as if this was a one off, you can be certain it wasn’t the first time attempting to go under the radar.365 are not digging their heels in for no reason, this is no ordinary case.

Magic Daps , I’m praying 365 win because I believe Ramruma is on the money here as regards the truth. Ask Star Sports what they think of these reptiles, and it’s not as if this was a one off, you can be certain it wasn’t the first time attempti

just to spice things up if your restricted,barred from betting with certain companies,but try your luck when a price is way out of line with other bookies and your bet is accepted,are they duty,legaly bound to pay you out if you win or can they claim the bet was taken in error as your restricted,barred etc,

just to spice things up if your restricted,barred from betting with certain companies,but try your luck when a price is way out of line with other bookies and your bet is accepted,are they duty,legaly bound to pay you out if you win or can they claim

Ask Star Sports what they think of these reptiles - you mean the book that will lay you what you want at 6/4 as long as it is 2/1 on here, and if you have a winner or 2 you are still long gone! Why are punters reptiles for wanting to place a bet in your opinion?

I am not saying it is a one off, I am also not seeing how they are trying to go under the radar placing a 25k bet either. My point is the bet was accepted and 365 knew it would have been placed straight away due to the stake size, all they had to do was void it straight away - then there is no issue and I doubt any complaints either from the punter. What we have is someone placing a bet and it gets accepted, and the book knows they will either void it if it wins, or keep the money if it loses. That is not right whichever way you look at it surely.

Ask Star Sports what they think of these reptiles - you mean the book that will lay you what you want at 6/4 as long as it is 2/1 on here, and if you have a winner or 2 you are still long gone! Why are punters reptiles for wanting to place a bet in y

then the Phil Ivey casino cheating decision would not help her, insofar as it said different standards applied for professionals than for ordinary consumers,

That decision had nothing to do with professionals/consumers. You might be getting mixed up with the Rangers relegated bet with Corals where the judge ruled (wrongly imo) that the punter wasn't a consumer as he was a former bookmaker. Also that was a Scottish case.

then the Phil Ivey casino cheating decision would not help her, insofar as it said different standards applied for professionals than for ordinary consumers,That decision had nothing to do with professionals/consumers. You might be getting mixed up

"If 365 win they could be opening a can of worms, how many people have put a bet on for someone else on their account. Would this leave us all able to claim that money back."

This a pretty daft arguement. There is a big difference between putting a bet on with a credit card or sticking your wife's tenner on for the sake of convenience and paying someone unconnected you to set up an account for you to fund and place bets to get around the fact that they would not allow you to set up and bet on your own account. The court can differentiate between different scenarios.

If I took out an insurance policy on my vehicle saying I only drove 3,000 miles a year and I knew I'd driven 100,000 miles the last few years and I likely would again a court is highly likely to find me in breach pf contract and side with the insurance company on not paying out. That doesn't mean they are saying everybody who has ever underestimated their mileage and driven over the estimated mileage would be in breach of contract for their policies. And it certainly doesn't mean they would all be entitled to a refund.

"If 365 win they could be opening a can of worms, how many people have put a bet on for someone else on their account. Would this leave us all able to claim that money back."This a pretty daft arguement. There is a big difference between putting a be

The insurance analogy doesn't hold water though, you haven't flagged up anything to them in the first place though, so yes they will be well within their rights to void your insurance after you try and claim etc.

This bet would have been flagged up instantly and they could have voided it instantly, instead they wait to see if there is a payout before voiding it. If they didn't want to lay the bet they could have easily chose not to before a runner even ran, but they wanted it both ways and be in a no lose situation. Lose nothing by voiding it or keep the 25k stake or part of it if it doesn't cop. They let the bet run so should payout imo.

The insurance analogy doesn't hold water though, you haven't flagged up anything to them in the first place though, so yes they will be well within their rights to void your insurance after you try and claim etc. This bet would have been flagged up i

It certainly does. The analogy points out clearly how a court could differentiate between different scenarios whereby the fact that a person is in breach of contract by deliberately setting out to deceive the other party it doesn't follow that anyone who has maybe tecnically breached the conditions because of slight error will also be or for the sake of convenience etc will also be.

The flagging doesn't effect whether there was a breach of contract though. I doubt an argument of yes I was clearly in breach of contract and I knew I was in breach of contract but they should have noticed my breach of contract earlier will get much sympathy from a court.

It certainly does. The analogy points out clearly how a court could differentiate between different scenarios whereby the fact that a person is in breach of contract by deliberately setting out to deceive the other party it doesn't follow that anyone

"If 365 win they could be opening a can of worms, how many people have put a bet on for someone else on their account. Would this leave us all able to claim that money back."This a pretty daft arguement. There is a big difference between putting a bet on with a credit card or sticking your wife's tenner on for the sake of convenience and paying someone unconnected you to set up an account for you to fund and place bets to get around the fact that they would not allow you to set up and bet on your own account. The court can differentiate between different scenarios. If I took out an insurance policy on my vehicle saying I only drove 3,000 miles a year and I knew I'd driven 100,000 miles the last few years and I likely would again a court is highly likely to find me in breach pf contract and side with the insurance company on not paying out. That doesn't mean they are saying everybody who has ever underestimated their mileage and driven over the estimated mileage would be in breach of contract for their policies. And it certainly doesn't mean they would all be entitled to a refund.

Why is this a daft argument ??

If they lay down a set of t&c and the customer agrees,then those t&c would still apply whether the amount was 25k or 1 pence, the t&c are to protect both parties.

£3.65 defence must be relying on the fair use condition 3.2 & 3.3

3.2 You must not use the Website for the benefit of a third party or for any purpose which (in bet365’s opinion) is illegal, defamatory, abusive or obscene, or which bet365 considers discriminatory, fraudulent, dishonest or inappropriate.

3.3 bet365 will seek criminal and contractual sanctions against any customer involved in fraudulent, dishonest or criminal acts via or in connection with the Website or bet365's products. bet365 will withhold payment to any customer where any of these are suspected or where the payment is suspected to be for the benefit of a third party. The customer shall indemnify and shall be liable to pay to bet365, on demand, all Claims (as defined in paragraph B.4.3 above) arising directly or indirectly from the customer’s fraudulent, dishonest or criminal act.

Why is this a daft argument ??If they lay down a set of t&c and the customer agrees,then those t&c would still apply whether the amount was 25k or 1 pence, the t&c are to protect both parties.£3.65 defence must be relying on the fair use condition

For the reason I've stated. It's nothing to do with 1 pence or 25,000. If the girl acted as a proxy for the real bettor for the purpose of deliberately deceiving 365 in to contracting with this person when 365 wouldn't have otherwise done so then that's a massively different scenario than someone placing an occasional bet for a partner or friend for the sake of convenience or because they were short of money.

This is the part they are likely to use. 4.2(c)

" if your account is being used for the benefit of a third party;"

"Why is this a daft argument ??"For the reason I've stated. It's nothing to do with 1 pence or 25,000. If the girl acted as a proxy for the real bettor for the purpose of deliberately deceiving 365 in to contracting with this person when 365 wouldn't

3.2 You must not use the Website for the benefit of a third party or for any purpose which ([b]in bet365’s opinion) is illegal, defamatory, abusive or obscene, or which bet365 considers discriminatory, fraudulent, dishonest or inappropriate.[/b]

That is as clear an unfair term as you could wish to see. It basically states that bet365's opinion is all that matters which obviously gives them too much power.

3.2 You must not use the Website for the benefit of a third party or for any purpose which ([b]in bet365’s opinion) is illegal, defamatory, abusive or obscene, or which bet365 considers discriminatory, fraudulent, dishonest or inappropriate.[/b]Tha

"Why is this a daft argument ??"For the reason I've stated. It's nothing to do with 1 pence or 25,000. If the girl acted as a proxy for the real bettor for the purpose of deliberately deceiving 365 in to contracting with this person when 365 wouldn't have otherwise done so then that's a massively different scenario than someone placing an occasional bet for a partner or friend for the sake of convenience or because they were short of money. This is the part they are likely to use. 4.2(c)" if your account is being used for the benefit of a third party;"

Wrong 4.2 refers to Software and Technology Issues

So your argument is that we will have a set of T&c that don't allow you to benefit a third party but because it's only a £1 for my gran it don't matter, contract law don't work like that.

Wrong 4.2 refers to Software and Technology IssuesSo your argument is that we will have a set of T&c that don't allow you to benefit a third party but because it's only a £1 for my gran it don't matter, contract law don't work like that.

She or whoever, has no chance whatsoever, and the chances of 365 settling with them is zero. They are hardly going to get all this bad publicity and then pay up. No doubt in the world , they are in it for the long haul , and that spells big trouble for the tower brigade.

She or whoever, has no chance whatsoever, and the chances of 365 settling with them is zero. They are hardly going to get all this bad publicity and then pay up. No doubt in the world , they are in it for the long haul , and that spells big trouble f

It certainly does. A court will often look behind the purpose of a particular term to determine whether that is a fair term or not. Any person or business is entitled to decide who they contract with and to have conditions which invalidate contracts entered in to by a proxy that they would not have otherwise contracted with. The court could clearly consider that this term was fair if used for the purpose of not being bound by a contract they wouldn't have otherwise entered in to.

I highly doubt they would find it fair for them to rely on the term to invalidate a contract for a bet which someones grandma asked them to put on for the simple convenience of her not going to have the hassle of setting up an account as it would be clear that was not the purpose the term was set out to prevent. The Intention of the parties matters a lot in contract law to interpret a contract.

You don't seem capable of understanding that there are different degrees and that a court will differentiate between different scenarios. This happens all the time.

If I take out a 5,000 loan and give the bird a couple hundred pound to repair her car rather than her having to take out a separate loan I highly doubt any court would consider that as breach of contract. If my mate from down the pub can't get credit then says he will pay me to take out a loan in my name and give it to him then I would almost certainly be breaching the loan contract because I am merely a guarantor and I am deliberately deceiving the bank knowing that if I told them the truth they may not contract with me.

https://help.bet365.com/en/terms-and-conditionsIt certainly doesn't on what I'm looking at. It certainly does. A court will often look behind the purpose of a particular term to determine whether that is a fair term or not. Any person or business is

Bet365 wont allow me to bet antepost offering nothing on anything i ask for since a couple of antepost wins over 10 years ago.

There’s greed and then there’s Bet365 greed....

Online gambling giant bet365 has seen its revenue increase to a whopping £2.15 billion over the last 12 months.

The company’s accounts, for the year up to March 26, show the Etruria firm's turnover grew from £1.65 billion last year.

It also increased operating profit from £456 million to £503 million and pre-tax profit rose from £459 million to £514 million.

In addition, bet365’s customers wagered more than £46.9 billion in bets within the 12 months – up by more than £10 million for the same period in 2016.

Bet365 wont allow me to bet antepost offering nothing on anything i ask for since a couple of antepost wins over 10 years ago.There’s greed and then there’s Bet365 greed....Online gambling giant bet365 has seen its revenue increase to a whopping

https://help.bet365.com/en/terms-and-conditionsIt certainly doesn't on what I'm looking at. It certainly does. A court will often look behind the purpose of a particular term to determine whether that is a fair term or not. Any person or business is entitled to decide who they contract with and to have conditions which invalidate contracts entered in to by a proxy that they would not have otherwise contracted with. The court could clearly consider that this term was fair if used for the purpose of not being bound by a contract they wouldn't have otherwise entered in to. I highly doubt they would find it fair for them to rely on the term to invalidate a contract for a bet which someones grandma asked them to put on for the simple convenience of her not going to have the hassle of setting up an account as it would be clear that was not the purpose the term was set out to prevent. The Intention of the parties matters a lot in contract law to interpret a contract. You don't seem capable of understanding that there are different degrees and that a court will differentiate between different scenarios. This happens all the time. If I take out a 5,000 loan and give the bird a couple hundred pound to repair her car rather than her having to take out a separate loan I highly doubt any court would consider that as breach of contract. If my mate from down the pub can't get credit then says he will pay me to take out a loan in my name and give it to him then I would almost certainly be breaching the loan contract because I am merely a guarantor and I am deliberately deceiving the bank knowing that if I told them the truth they may not contract with me.

Ridiculous examples, i think you have been watching way too Judge Rinder

Ok link me a case law, that should not be difficult if as you say happens all the time

Ridiculous examples, i think you have been watching way too Judge Rinder Ok link me a case law, that should not be difficult if as you say happens all the time

Ridiculous examples, i think you have been watching way too Judge Rinder

Ok link me a case law, that should not be difficult if as you say happens all the time

You want to tell my why? I'm not going to spend time looking for a relevant case for someone who thinks a court doesn't taken in to account whether a party to a contract deliberately deceived the other party in to entering a contract with them by using a proxy.

"Yes but £3.65 would still need to prove why they consider she has breached their t&c"

Not the case again. Their skeletal argument would have to address any controversial issues before the matter even went to trial. They'd be pretty daft to either not address 365's position in it or to perjur themselves.

Ridiculous examples, i think you have been watching way too Judge Rinder Ok link me a case law, that should not be difficult if as you say happens all the timeYou want to tell my why? I'm not going to spend time looking for a relevant case for someon

Similarly had an antepost win around 10 years ago with Paddy Power who now limit me to £200 antepost. At least they let you get enough on to not fall asleep during the race.

If it was them maybe a similar limit would be in order?

Similarly had an antepost win around 10 years ago with Paddy Power who now limit me to £200 antepost. At least they let you get enough on to not fall asleep during the race.If it was them maybe a similar limit would be in order?

Did a top scorer bet for £20 I think, offer was free £2 bet every time they scored. After 3 months or so the player wasn't going to win it.

They then restricted my account, no bog, offers, etc etc and stopped the £2 free bets if he scored, even though the bet was struck before my account was restricted. They wouldn't cancel the original bet either

So they could say bet £100 on top scorer (worse odds than other bookies) and get a free £10 bet for every goal. Then restrict your account straight away and not pay out free bets or refund original bet.

The biggest welchers out there.

Paddy Power the worst of the lot.Betting with them over 6 years only up about £3,000 in total.Did a top scorer bet for £20 I think, offer was free £2 bet every time they scored. After 3 months or so the player wasn't going to win it. They then res

They cant win this case there terms and conditions are unfair and they took the bet at any time that bet could have been voided but only after they lost this is so seriously flawed that you just wonder what is there argument unless insider stuff or some other serious scenario but if its just a 3rd part funds they wont win because it opens up a serious can of worms about placing bets for 3rd parties as we have all done and the refunding of them if they win cost them far more and you will have law firms on the tv advertising if you ever placed a bet for a 3rd party claim now lol

They cant win this case there terms and conditions are unfair and they took the bet at any time that bet could have been voided but only after they lost this is so seriously flawed that you just wonder what is there argument unless insider stuff or s

why doesn't it matter the bet was flagged, moved to PTL and then authorised? They had every chance to decline the transaction, they accepted her KYC on opening her ac and depositing. If they were unhappy with KYC profile and deposit that was the time to suspend the ac, the Judge should note the safeguarding and duty of care bypass and send it to whichever toothless quango can fine them £15 million customer welfare neglect, failure to KYC and satisfy money laundering issues and bringing bookmaking into disrepute because it never intended honouring an authorised wager and was going to keep the stake whatever the outcome of the races.

why doesn't it matter the bet was flagged, moved to PTL and then authorised? They had every chance to decline the transaction, they accepted her KYC on opening her ac and depositing. If they were unhappy with KYC profile and deposit that was the time

They cant win this case there terms and conditions are unfair and they took the bet at any time that bet could have been voided but only after they lost this is so seriously flawed that you just wonder what is there argument unless insider stuff or some other serious scenario but if its just a 3rd part funds they wont win because it opens up a serious can of worms about placing bets for 3rd parties as we have all done and the refunding of them if they win cost them far more and you will have law firms on the tv advertising if you ever placed a bet for a 3rd party claim now lol

Let's say for instance what you say is correct that the court finding said term was unfair means it does open this can of worms (as I've said it's a daft arguement but let's just say that is the case). You don't think there will be a can of worms opened up if the court decides that any attempt by a party to restrict or prevent a 3rd party from using another persons account for their benefit is unfair and invalid?

They will basically be saying yeah just ignore all these identity checks and money laundering regulations that bookies, casinos, lotteries, bingos ask you to comply with because at the end of the day all you need to do is get a 3rd party to open up an account on your behalf and Bob's your uncle there is nothing that they can do to prevent it.

They cant win this case there terms and conditions are unfair and they took the bet at any time that bet could have been voided but only after they lost this is so seriously flawed that you just wonder what is there argument unless insider stuff or s

BPA .. bookmakers protection association . from early years .. ?? the bet in question leads to .. standing the bet as it rolled along to ........ 12 winners .. ? great wager if you are ON ... ? there lies the answers .. once a bet rolls on it may well have been killed off and the money applied to reduce liability .. still in the ...........satchell .. to help pay this BET ??? Traders now they call them .. and liability .. as bet ran its course all that time .. it starts with the BOOKMAKER NOW THE STAKE HOLDER .. in Charge of the said money and imminent pay out ..>> ? ... covering your backside comes to mind .. and should have been addressed ...........this shirking ........SHOULD NOT BE IN THE LANGUAGE OF LAYERS .. P.S. A bet is nothing till it has a winner on the slip and as it grows ....MORE WINNERS ... it deserves attention......MR TRADER .. ..... Changed days .. WHEN LIABILITIES WERE COVERED ..ITV SIX LAST RACE PRICES WERE COVERED SO MONEY WAS LEFT AFTER IT WAS ALL SCOOPED UP ....? NORMALLY AS ALL ...???? BEAT .. ONE SCENARIO .. Hope this helps .. but many standards have been breached on this occasion . ................. PUNTER CAN HAVE 6 T0 4 AS 2 TO 1 IS AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE ... COMES TO MIND .. Minefield out there this gambling game BEWARE .. NO PUNTER should have to have a day in court to pay up .. MONEY ACCEPTED IS THE KEY ..

BPA .. bookmakers protection association . from early years .. ?? the bet in question leads to .. standing the bet as it rolled along to ........ 12 winners .. ? great wager if you are ON ... ? there lies the answers .. once a bet rolls o

Ridiculous examples, i think you have been watching way too Judge Rinder Ok link me a case law, that should not be difficult if as you say happens all the timeYou want to tell my why? I'm not going to spend time looking for a relevant case for someone who thinks a court doesn't taken in to account whether a party to a contract deliberately deceived the other party in to entering a contract with them by using a proxy. "Yes but £3.65 would still need to prove why they consider she has breached their t&c"Not the case again. Their skeletal argument would have to address any controversial issues before the matter even went to trial. They'd be pretty daft to either not address 365's position in it or to perjur themselves.

Well you did say that it happens all the time so it should not have taken to much time to find an example, so you have no proof it happens all the time it's just your opinion.

The lawyer who is acting for her, who incidentally fought and won the Curley case against baldy would disagree with your opinion that it's a daft argument.

Well you did say that it happens all the time so it should not have taken to much time to find an example, so you have no proof it happens all the time it's just your opinion.The lawyer who is acting for her, who incidentally fought and won the Curle

To find an example of what? Two different cases which a court distinguishes between a term being fair and unfair depending whether it's purpose is to prevent a person from deceiving them in to contracting with them or not?

I'll pass thanks. I suspect even if I did you'd just reply with "ridiculous example" whilst refusing to elaborate further.

The lawyer acting for Bet365 and the others acting for other bookmakers, online casinos, lotteries that drafted these terms and conditions do think it's a daft agrument.

Care to have a bet on whether if the court finds in favour of 365 the court will say everybody who's placed a bet for someone else, with a credit card or through a syndicate is entitled to contact their bookie, online casino or the lottery requesting a refund?

To find an example of what? Two different cases which a court distinguishes between a term being fair and unfair depending whether it's purpose is to prevent a person from deceiving them in to contracting with them or not?I'll pass thanks. I suspect

To find an example of what? Two different cases which a court distinguishes between a term being fair and unfair depending whether it's purpose is to prevent a person from deceiving them in to contracting with them or not?I'll pass thanks. I suspect even if I did you'd just reply with "ridiculous example" whilst refusing to elaborate further. The lawyer acting for Bet365 and the others acting for other bookmakers, online casinos, lotteries that drafted these terms and conditions do think it's a daft agrument.Care to have a bet on whether if the court finds in favour of 365 the court will say everybody who's placed a bet for someone else, with a credit card or through a syndicate is entitled to contact their bookie, online casino or the lottery requesting a refund?

You claimed it happens all the time, how do you know it happens all the time when you can't even give me one example of when it has happened before, fact is you don't know it happens all the time, it was bull, your even now trying to guess my replies

This will get settled out of court in the end just like it did with baldy, three pound sixty five are just playing the long game, it wouldn't surprise me if you worked for this shower of 5hit.

You claimed it happens all the time, how do you know it happens all the time when you can't even give me one example of when it has happened before, fact is you don't know it happens all the time, it was bull, your even now trying to guess my replies

there is an obvious and important difference between a fraudulently exaggerated claim and a justified claim supported by collateral lies. Where a claim has been fraudulently exaggerated, the insured’s dishonesty is calculated to get him something to which he is not entitled.

The court distinguishes between a material lie or breach of contract and an immaterial one based on whether the intention of the party was to get something they would otherwise not be entitled to.

Exactly what I have said in both my analogies about insurance contracts and bank contracts. Also what I have said about the court distinguishing between breaching contract terms by deceit to try and get bet365 to do something it would have otherwise not have done e.g setting up an account in someone else's name and potentially breaching conditions for sake of convenience which does not have any material affect on making bet365 do something it would not have otherwise done e.g granny putting a bet on through your account.

I look forward to one of your half witted responses such as "ridiculous example" or "but the lawyer said".

I'll take that as a no you don't want to bet with me? Typical forum bull****. "I know this, I know that" but then won't back it up with his money. Probably for the best I was going to suggest the loser donate to a charity but you're probably a more deserving charity case anyway.

Versloot Dredging BV and anr (Appellants) v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG and ors (Respondents) [2016] UKSC 45 On appeal from [2014] EWCA Civ 1349 there is an obvious and important difference between a fraudulently exaggerated claim and a jus

shrewd_dude - I do not expect the punter to win but I want them to win due to the fact that 365 took the bet, and they could have easily and quickly voided before any of the runners ran, they didn't do that expecting to fall on their T&Cs to bail them out, knowing full well if the bet didn't return a profit they would keep it. To me, and as pointed out above, they would have to prove that other bets have been placed and lost for the same reasons, and got voided after the events and money refunded for it to hold any water.

My point above about classing credit cards as "third party funds" (legally) was just that. To me (a clueless idiot), legally borrowing money to bet isn't your money and is indeed a "third party fund", wherever it comes from. What is the difference of "borrowing" money from a mate and placing a bet, or borrowing money from a credit card and having a bet?? Legally to me they are no different. Would this student have been paid out if it was paid by a credit card?

shrewd_dude - I do not expect the punter to win but I want them to win due to the fact that 365 took the bet, and they could have easily and quickly voided before any of the runners ran, they didn't do that expecting to fall on their T&Cs to bail the

There is no mention of "3rd party funds" in Bet365's terms of any other bookies as far as I'm aware so I cant see any reason why they wouldn't pay out. If it turns out that this female has simply borrowed money from someone to make a bet or used a credit card then I'd be flabbergasted if the court found in favour of 365.

How do you know they had all the information at that time? There is no mention of "3rd party funds" in Bet365's terms of any other bookies as far as I'm aware so I cant see any reason why they wouldn't pay out. If it turns out that this female has si

f*cking mobsters these firms, daylight robbery all the time and the government/media don't bat an eyelid. I really have never known a sport where the everyday person gets mugged off so obviously and so continuously only for nothing to be done about it. The higher ups really do hold us in utter contempt don't they.

f*cking mobsters these firms, daylight robbery all the time and the government/media don't bat an eyelid. I really have never known a sport where the everyday person gets mugged off so obviously and so continuously only for nothing to be done about i

How do you know they had all the information at that time? What information do you mean? They accepted a bet that they knew could payout a large amount, the bet itself is obviously quite niche and anyone who is sticking on that sum in multis I would guess isn't just picking their bets out because of the colours of the silks from the paper. The flags would have went up as soon as it was accepted and 365 could have voided it quite easily (I have no issue with that at all). They didn't, and decided to let it run in its entirety and then claiming this 3rd party line - how is that fair? To me they would have to prove that they have voided plenty of losers after the results and paid back punters for their T&Cs to hold water.

There is no mention of "3rd party funds" in Bet365's terms of any other bookies as far as I'm aware so I cant see any reason why they wouldn't pay out. If it turns out that this female has simply borrowed money from someone to make a bet or used a credit card then I'd be flabbergasted if the court found in favour of 365. If she didn't already have the funds weeks before in her bank account, and someone sent it to her and then she placed the bet, she will obviously just say she has simply borrowed it from said person to place the bet for herself.

How do you know they had all the information at that time? What information do you mean? They accepted a bet that they knew could payout a large amount, the bet itself is obviously quite niche and anyone who is sticking on that sum in multis I would

The ideal outcome would be that the third party scenario is declared irrelevant. There really is no basis for the bookie's claim that they have a right to refuse bets from certain people. They can use basic risk management to minimise exposure. In this case they were clearly happy to accept a large liability.

Money laundering etc is an issue for the authorities and the bookies merely require to identify people and report suspicions (which they aren't very good at if the individual is a big loser).

The ideal outcome would be that the third party scenario is declared irrelevant. There really is no basis for the bookie's claim that they have a right to refuse bets from certain people. They can use basic risk management to minimise exposure. In

If one googles The Gambling Commision / Status of a bet as a contract, its website gives a definitive definition, its legalities and terms and conditions of a bet struck between two parties.

Basically, it says it is a legally enforceable contract subject to "terms and conditions" - that is the debatable and grey area which is subject to interpretations and legalities of learned individuals. But what it does not categorically stipulate is despite a bet has been placed with and accepted by a gambling business / entities the bet must be honoured regardless post a correct prediction ie no reneging after bet acceptance; a bet that has no chance of winning should never have been accepted at the outset.

I believe '365' ought to honour the bet and not hide behind its terms and conditions post acceptance and post the result of the events; the source of stake money should not be disputed post the outcome of the bet. Instead, questions should have been asked and answers scrutinised prior to acceptance - it is £25k, not a few £. Is it not akin to Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) ie paying a small insurance premium in order to meet the terms and conditions of the contract set out by the other party with little and / or no chance of getting a payout should one is unable to honour the existing contract?

I do not believe '365' will honour the bet, and the bettor will not benefit from the outcome either; stake money will be returned to bettor. Would it not be appropriate and sensible if the amount in question go to charities in need and / or racing communities? At least then there will benefactors.

If one googles The Gambling Commision / Status of a bet as a contract, its website gives a definitive definition, its legalities and terms and conditions of a bet struck between two parties. Basically, it says it is a legally enforceable contract sub

How do you know they had all the information at that time? What information do you mean? They accepted a bet that they knew could payout a large amount, the bet itself is obviously quite niche and anyone who is sticking on that sum in multis I would guess isn't just picking their bets out because of the colours of the silks from the paper. The flags would have went up as soon as it was accepted and 365 could have voided it quite easily (I have no issue with that at all). They didn't, and decided to let it run in its entirety and then claiming this 3rd party line - how is that fair? To me they would have to prove that they have voided plenty of losers after the results and paid back punters for their T&Cs to hold water.

The information that relates to whether or not they were in breach of contract. It's pretty bloody relevant considering this whole case is a dispute over breach of contract. People moan about bookies not accepting large bets and restricting people and now you are effectively saying they should void any large bets straight away and just presume the person placing the bet may be breaching their terms and conditions? Again to go to an insurance contract analogy what you are saying is the equivalent that people who don't mention they have any RTA convictions and breach the contract should still get paid out simply because the insurance company took the money and didn't cancel the policy at any point.

There is no mention of "3rd party funds" in Bet365's terms of any other bookies as far as I'm aware so I cant see any reason why they wouldn't pay out. If it turns out that this female has simply borrowed money from someone to make a bet or used a credit card then I'd be flabbergasted if the court found in favour of 365. If she didn't already have the funds weeks before in her bank account, and someone sent it to her and then she placed the bet, she will obviously just say she has simply borrowed it from said person to place the bet for herself.

No sorry that isn't obvious. It's not obvious at all that this female (who if the bookies position is correct is being paid presumably a percentage of the winnings) is going to perjur herself in the High Court. Do you know how many years you get for perjury in the High Court?

The ideal outcome would be that the third party scenario is declared irrelevant. There really is no basis for the bookie's claim that they have a right to refuse bets from certain people. They can use basic risk management to minimise exposure. In this case they were clearly happy to accept a large liability.

Of course there is. Every business or person has the right to choose who they contract with and not be deceived in to contracting with someone through a proxy. Whether or not they should be restricting or banning people who are profitable or bet in a different way is a different matter and is something the toothless gambling commission should be looking at in terms of their licensing conditions but it isn't a matter for the court in a contract dispute.

How do you know they had all the information at that time? What information do you mean? They accepted a bet that they knew could payout a large amount, the bet itself is obviously quite niche and anyone who is sticking on that sum in multis I would

Of course there is. Every business or person has the right to choose who they contract with and not be deceived in to contracting with someone through a proxy.

That isn't an absolute right and even if the business is deceived, they should have to prove some damage by contracting with this other person (which they can't when their prices offered purport to be accurate and they accepted a substantial bet at those prices). This is where the numerous examples of people putting bets on for third parties are relevant. Their "no third party" term is obviously unenforceable on a practical level. If the intention is only to apply it to substantial winning bets, it is clearly unfair and designed to unjustly enrich the bookmaker.

I don't know whether the court will discuss this issue in detail, but the entire model of putting up suspect prices, restricting, banning and trying to avoid paying should be exposed.

@Shrewd DudeOf course there is. Every business or person has the right to choose who they contract with and not be deceived in to contracting with someone through a proxy.That isn't an absolute right and even if the business is deceived, they should

How is it not an absolute right? What other situation can you suggest where a person or business doesn’t have the right to decide who they contract with?

They don’t have to prove any damage. All they have to prove is there was a breach of contract.

How do you suggest they prevent people who have committed fraud, their own employees or people in restricted territories from contracting with them if you remove the right for them to decide who they contract with?

How is it not an absolute right? What other situation can you suggest where a person or business doesn’t have the right to decide who they contract with?They don’t have to prove any damage. All they have to prove is there was a breach of contract

They have an licensing obligation to treat customers fairly - there are also numerous reasons from discrimination to competition regulation where a business would be acting illegally by refusing to do business with a person.

It isn't 365 who are alleging breach of contract. It is the plaintiff. 365 are apparently saying that the because their complex rules say something about third parties they should be allowed to withhold winnings from the plaintiff.

Your other examples are red herrings mostly. They either should be addressed before any bets are taken or wouldn't result in damage or be solved by other remedies.

This was a substantial bet and would have been reviewed by traders. There is no question of an error. They took the bet and when it won decided to look for a way to welch.

They have an licensing obligation to treat customers fairly - there are also numerous reasons from discrimination to competition regulation where a business would be acting illegally by refusing to do business with a person.It isn't 365 who are alleg

Discrimination but other than that again I’d be interested in your examples.

On the information we have at the moment 365 certainly are alleging breach of contract. What do you think terms and conditions are? Part of the contract. Bet365 are reusing to honour the contract because of breach of contract and student is pursuing them for breach of contract.

Explain the red herriings then? How do you void a contract for breach of contract if you don’t have information a person has breached a contract? Whether or not they had information of a breach of contract is pretty relevant to whether they voided the bet?

Being reviewed by traders is irrelevant from a breach of contract perspective. Since when is it a traders job to decide whether a person has breach the terms and conditions?

Again I’d be grateful if you answered the question at the end of my last post.

Who do you think this will benefit if it turns out this was a proxy account and the court still finds against 365?

Discrimination but other than that again I’d be interested in your examples.On the information we have at the moment 365 certainly are alleging breach of contract. What do you think terms and conditions are? Part of the contract. Bet365 are reusin

My point about your examples is not that there aren't any situations where a firm might have the right to claim that they won't pay out due to "cheating" (in the widest possible sense) but they are irrelevant to this specific case. There was no cheating. There was no deception as to the size of the bet eg by many small bets from several accounts. It was one large bet reviewed and accepted. It is virtually certain imo that the book has suspicions that the bet was unusual and intended withhold payment, if it was a winner. Looking more closely at the term being used, it is specifically designed to do that. It doesn't say that bets will be voided, it says that winnings will not be paid. I think that in itself might not be legal.

btw re perjury the student could quite easily claim that she considered when the bet was placed keeping the winnings for herself or that her view was that as she was using the account for her benefit despite the circumstances. The bet being instructed and funded by a third party might be admitted, but that doesn't mean 365 will win.

As you well know books could reduce all their worries about third parties, insiders and coups by limiting early prices and closely monitoring the betting market. Instead they offer incorrect prices well in advance and ban/restrict people take advantage of them (unless they are casino losers thus reducing racing's income).

My point about your examples is not that there aren't any situations where a firm might have the right to claim that they won't pay out due to "cheating" (in the widest possible sense) but they are irrelevant to this specific case. There was no chea

once bet is accepted .. it has to be treated with some respect ..ie traders in this case .. and had plenty opportunities to kill that bet off if so desired . a once in a while they find themselves out with the washing to dry .. ?? ..dont think its reasonable ... and many bets have other interested shareholders in on it ,, daily betting for sure ?? an ordinarypub .. can I have a bit of that and money goes ON . ?? . every day in life .. sorry business tho land in court .. VERY INTERESTING WHAT OUTCOME MAY HOLD FOR BOTH PARTIES .. SEEMS TO BE A TRAIT SINCE ALL THIS KICKED OFF THAT STAKES REDUCED ... SP ...ETC ON OFFER .. AND STAKES HALVED OR NOTHING .. SAD DAY FOR BOOKMAKERS .. REALLY .. no one should win .. ??

once bet is accepted .. it has to be treated with some respect ..ie traders in this case .. and had plenty opportunities to kill that bet off if so desired . a once in a while they find themselves out with the washing to dry .. ?? ..dont think its re

The contract term that they appear to be using to refuse payment simply states that they don't need to pay out, that's why they haven't returned the stake.

How that can possibly be a fair term amazes me, so I can only imagine that they are arguing that the Consumer Rights Act doesn't apply.

The contract term that they appear to be using to refuse payment simply states that they don't need to pay out, that's why they haven't returned the stake.How that can possibly be a fair term amazes me, so I can only imagine that they are arguing tha

She was said to be 19 when she staked almost £25,000 on 12 horses running in four races in June 2016. But bet365 refused to pay out, believing her stake was supplied by a third party, in breach of its terms and conditions.

we don't have enough information about how the bet or, more likely, a series of bets were placed. Whether the bets were all on the same day or what the stakes were on each bet.

Obviously a betslip that has a total stake of 25,000 would have to be confirmed by traders before placement. If it was done in a series of bets with a much smaller stake then perhaps some of the bets were accepted straightaway.

The OP says that the bets were on 12 horses in 4 races in June 2016 - nothing about whether the races were on the same day.

You need absolutely all the details before you can make a judgement.

She was said to be 19 when she staked almost £25,000 on 12 horses running in four races in June 2016. But bet365 refused to pay out, believing her stake was supplied by a third party, in breach of its terms and conditions.we don't have enough inform

@hulk23 - that is irrelevant their terms say that they don't need to pay out, not that they must void bets

@swift-tuttle The court doesn't set the evidence presented. British courts are adversarial not inquisitorial.

These issues might be considered, but at the behest of the parties, not the judge.

@hulk23 - that is irrelevant their terms say that they don't need to pay out, not that they must void bets@swift-tuttle The court doesn't set the evidence presented. British courts are adversarial not inquisitorial.These issues might be considered,

Not seen anything but according to the RP back in March, 19/6 was only ever due to be a pre-trial application to have part of the claim struck out, not the start of the case itself. The Racing Post reported in March:

Proceedings remain at an early stage, with no legal arguments advanced. However, counsel for bet365, Peter Hopkins, has commenced steps aimed at having the case against his client reduced before it reaches trial.

Hopkins went before a High Court Master on Friday to secure a date for the strike-out application. It was confirmed that the legal move will be determined following a one-day hearing on June 19.

Not seen anything but according to the RP back in March, 19/6 was only ever due to be a pre-trial application to have part of the claim struck out, not the start of the case itself. The Racing Post reported in March:Proceedings remain at an early sta